The most consequential election in our lifetime is still 10 months away, but its clear from the Obama administrations order halting South Carolinas new photo ID law that the Democrats already have brought a gun to a knife fight.

How else to describe this naked assault on the right of a state to create minimal requirements to curb voter fraud?

On Dec. 23, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez sent a letter ordering South Carolina to stop enforcing its photo ID law. Mr. Perez, who heads the Civil Rights Division that booted charges against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters in Philadelphia in 2008, said South Carolinas law would disenfranchise thousands of minority voters.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson rejected Mr. Perezs math and explained on Fox News why the law is necessary. The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.

One person, one vote doesn't help the Democrats raise the dead.

Quote:

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indianas 2005 photo ID law, which the Democratic Party and several interest groups had challenged as a severe burden.

No one has been denied the right to vote by the Indiana Voter ID Law. The record clearly establishes without challenge that 99 percent of the Voting Age Population in Indiana already has the required ID, in the form of drivers licenses, passports, or other identification. Of the remaining 1 percent, senior citizens and the disabled are automatically eligible to vote by absentee ballot, and such absentee voting is exempt from the Voter ID Law.

Does that sound severe to you?As Mr. Ferrara notes, the slight burden of additional paperwork for a fraction of 1 percent, to show who they are and thereby prove their eligibility to vote, cannot come close to outweighing the interests of all legitimate legal voters in maintaining their effective vote.

That's called a compelling societal interest which is why the Supreme Court upheld it.

Quote:

A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.

In a 2008 column, Mr. Carter and Mr. Baker cited a study by American Universitys Center for Democracy and Election Management that echoed the election commission. Among other things, researchers found that in three states - Indiana, Mississippi and Maryland - about 1.2 percent of registered voters had no photo ID.

Since the GOP took a majority of governorships and legislatures in 2010 and continued enacting voting safeguards, you can feel the panic in Democratic strongholds.

The panic involves not being able to forge votes of course.

Quote:

In Chicago, a federal investigation of the 1982 gubernatorial election estimated that at least 100,000 illegal votes had been cast and that voter fraud had been routine for many years.

In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.

If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities.

Claims without evidence, why should that bother Democrats. You have to break a few eggs to get to utopia. The people are ignorant and need to be protected from themselves. What's the Matter With Kansas is that no one can stuff the ballot box.

Quote:

The NAACP even petitioned the United Nations this month for a human-rights ruling on what President Benjamin Jealous called a "tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote." He meant in America, not Cuba or North Korea. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to challenge a voter ID law in Wisconsin.

Mr. Holder's remarks are especially notable because they come as the Justice Department is reviewing voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina for "preclearance" under the Voting Rights Act. The states' plans require voters to present photo ID like a driver's license or passport to vote, a measure endorsed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 to protect the integrity of the ballot.

The states act on a Federal Measure and then the Federal Government AG wants to declare it is racist to act as the Federal Government prescribed.

Quote:

Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional.

Rule of law, that doesn't allow someone to steal elections or forge signatures, or whatever else Democrats will be doing in 2012 in a desperate bid to win.

Quote:

The court's liberal lion, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana's law "is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn't an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state's interest in reducing fraud, Justice Stevens wrote.

I want my vote preserved and you should want that too.

Quote:

Plaintiffs put up by liberal lawsuit shops routinely claim that ID laws endanger the rights of hundreds of thousands, but lawsuits in Indiana and Georgia were dismissed because they couldn't produce a single eligible voter who'd been turned away due to the ID requirement. Turnout has risen in states that have passed the voter ID laws, with no adverse impact on minorities.

Little facts like this shouldn't get in the way of spinning a good intention into a desire to steal votes and elections for Democratic leaders.

Quote:

In his speech, Mr. Holder highlighted historical attempts to keep voters away from the polls to "gain partisan advantage." But in a case of more recent history, in 2009, Mr. Holder's department dropped a voter intimidation case against the Black Panther Party, in which members stood outside a polling place brandishing nightsticks and threatening voters. Civil-rights lawyer Bartle Bull saw the Panthers in action and called it "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."

Thirty states now require some form of ID at the polls, and one goal of Mr. Holder's attack is to intimidate other states that want to toughen their laws. He's probably also signaling that Justice will strike down the Texas and South Carolina statutes. This would please the Democratic Party's left while not-so-subtly inventing a threat of Republican racism to drive minority turnout in 2012. Mr. Holder's voter ID alarums are one more reason he's earning a reputation for politicized, partial justice.

Having to walk past a thug standing outside a polling station with a stick isn't an undue burden, a free photo ID, well that is a burden. The depravity of Democrats is amazing.

If ID applications are free, and applications are taken and fulfilled outside of working hours, and there is no need for transportation to be paid by the applicant, then I would accept a voter ID system. Oh, and no physical address required, obviously.

If ID applications are free, and applications are taken and fulfilled outside of working hours, and there is no need for transportation to be paid by the applicant, then I would accept a voter ID system. Oh, and no physical address required, obviously.

Yup. Perhaps if the state were to partner with local grocery stores to be the locations to obtain said IDs, that may work. Awareness must also be raised within the potentially disenfranchised communities about the new requirements--can't have anyone showing up at the polls without IDs because they weren't aware of the law.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

If ID applications are free, and applications are taken and fulfilled outside of working hours, and there is no need for transportation to be paid by the applicant, then I would accept a voter ID system. Oh, and no physical address required, obviously.

What are you talking about no transportation or address? Residency requirements are part of voter eligibility. I can't speak for every state but you don't need transportation in California because you can just print out the form from online as a PDF and mail it in. Also all of these issue go out the window when you vote absentee. Anyone can just have the ballot sent to their home, fill it out and then send it back. No one has figured out how to stuff the ballot box with dead people voting from their homes.

What are you talking about no transportation or address? Residency requirements are part of voter eligibility. I can't speak for every state but you don't need transportation in California because you can just print out the form from online as a PDF and mail it in. Also all of these issue go out the window when you vote absentee. Anyone can just have the ballot sent to their home, fill it out and then send it back. No one has figured out how to stuff the ballot box with dead people voting from their homes.

You have to go down to the DMV and have your photo taken. If the only DMV is in the next county, that's a problem. And you can be a state resident and be homeless.

You have to go down to the DMV and have your photo taken. If the only DMV is in the next county, that's a problem.

It isn't like photo identification isn't required for dozens of other things. Likewise if the only building for getting benefits is in the next county, they are going to have to go to that as well.

How low do you want the bar to be here tonton? Is the burden too great if they have to actually physically lift a finger or something?

Quote:

And you can be a state resident and be homeless.

Of course you can, but that has to weigh itself against preventing fraud. Fraud delutes and disenfranchises the votes of everyone else. They can be a resident, be homeless and apply for and carry their free state ID.

It isn't like photo identification isn't required for dozens of other things. Likewise if the only building for getting benefits is in the next county, they are going to have to go to that as well.

How low do you want the bar to be here tonton? Is the burden too great if they have to actually physically lift a finger or something?

Of course you can, but that has to weigh itself against preventing fraud. Fraud delutes and disenfranchises the votes of everyone else. They can be a resident, be homeless and apply for and carry their free state ID.

Well, like Sammi Jo said, if we had voter ID in 2000 and 2004, there's no way Bush would have gotten elected. But to answer your first question, the bar needs to be low enough that it doesn't disenfranchise someone because they are poor.

It's just like welfare, insurance, and everything else. There will be fraud. Eliminating the service to eliminate fraud is not the answer, because more people will be harmed by eliminating the service (or over-policing it, costing millions) than are harmed by the fraud in the first place.

Well, like Sammi Jo said, if we had voter ID in 2000 and 2004, there's no way Bush would have gotten elected. But to answer your first question, the bar needs to be low enough that it doesn't disenfranchise someone because they are poor.

The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.

Quote:

It's just like welfare, insurance, and everything else. There will be fraud. Eliminating the service to eliminate fraud is not the answer, because more people will be harmed by eliminating the service (or over-policing it, costing millions) than are harmed by the fraud in the first place.

Costing millions?!? Where do you pull that number from? The studies cited in this thread already showed that the percentage of people without photo ID was less than one percent. Minority participation in all places voter ID has been passed has gone up. No one has been able to sue, even with law practices wanting to press the case because not one person has been disenfranchised.

The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.

Costing millions?!? Where do you pull that number from? The studies cited in this thread already showed that the percentage of people without photo ID was less than one percent. Minority participation in all places voter ID has been passed has gone up. No one has been able to sue, even with law practices wanting to press the case because not one person has been disenfranchised.

From that you get...... millions.........that's just crazy.

The costs associated with means testing for social benefits like health care and the disenfranchisement of a single voter because they are poor are separate issues.

The costs associated with means testing for social benefits like health care and the disenfranchisement of a single voter because they are poor are separate issues.

That's nice. I addressed voters (the thread topic) specifically.

Quote:

Eliminating the service to eliminate fraud is not the answer, because more people will be harmed by eliminating the service (or over-policing it, costing millions) than are harmed by the fraud in the first place.

You are the one conflating the two. You then claim they are separate issues. Are you drinking?

That's nice. I addressed voters (the thread topic) specifically.
You are the one conflating the two. You then claim they are separate issues. Are you drinking?

Fair enough. As you can see by the thread, if it's a free and simple process for everyone to get a photo ID for free regardless of their location or the time of application, then I support voter ID.

Replacement IDs for lost or stolen IDs must be free as well.

You'd be surprised to know that in theory, I support ID requirement, when technology has reached the point where privacy can be maintained. I certainly don't support random checks (like they have in Hong Kong), but I believe eventually, ID should be carried by all persons, for legal and safety reasons. However, that ID shouldn't be readable by just anyone. The data, including name, should be encrypted, and readable only either voluntarily with a PIN number or biometrics offered by the holder, or by the Police via warrant.

Oh, and to address your point that "not a single voter was found to have been disenfranchised", how many of the people who are too poor to get a photo ID do you think have the time to voluntarily respond to a call from a lawyer?

Fair enough. As you can see by the thread, if it's a free and simple process for everyone to get a photo ID for free regardless of their location or the time of application, then I support voter ID.

Replacement IDs for lost or stolen IDs must be free as well.

Congrats but realize you are at odds with most liberal leaders here in the U.S. Way to be an independent thinker there! Have you seen this map? It's the who's who of who's blue with regard to voter ID.

Quote:

You'd be surprised to know that in theory, I support ID requirement, when technology has reached the point where privacy can be maintained. I certainly don't support random checks (like they have in Hong Kong), but I believe eventually, ID should be carried by all persons, for legal and safety reasons. However, that ID shouldn't be readable by just anyone. The data, including name, should be encrypted, and readable only either voluntarily with a PIN number or biometrics offered by the holder, or by the Police via warrant.

Certainly some aspects of it could be made encrypted or private, but on a day to day level, you simply need an ID often and for a multitude of reasons by a multitude of people.

Quote:

Oh, and to address your point that "not a single voter was found to have been disenfranchised", how many of the people who are too poor to get a photo ID do you think have the time to voluntarily respond to a call from a lawyer?

Plenty. You think they couldn't find one retired grandmother in any community claiming possible disenfranchisement? The NAACP can call it a major civil rights issue and even file a complaint with the United Nations, but they can't find one person for a lawsuit? That's like saying you can't find one person who had to go to the back of the bus or who was refused service at a restaurant without going to the back door.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack

Someone explain to me how someone with no address is supposed to vote? How do you determine what city, county and congressional district someone is to vote in if that person has no address?

They can give the address of the shelter they go to occasionally. They can give the address of a county building or even a city park. The point is that right now, Democrats round these people up and feed them for a day to get into a van and go vote. They don't have to be registered since they can just claim to be dead people false names they've registered. They will even driven them to a few polling stations while feeding them and paying them in cigarettes and crack. They get to vote early and often. That can't happen with a voter ID requirement.

It has to be free because otherwise, the person who can't afford it is disenfranchised. Which is unconstitutional.

What if i can't afford to get myself to the polling place?... what if i can't afford to take off work that day to vote? ... am I disenfranchised too????
A $20 voter registration fee... or even a REQUIREMENT to have a voter ID card is NOT "disenfranchisement".
But a non-citizen voting in our elections IS disenfranchisement for everyone else... and needs to be prevented.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

They can give the address of the shelter they go to occasionally. They can give the address of a county building or even a city park. The point is that right now, Democrats round these people up and feed them for a day to get into a van and go vote. They don't have to be registered since they can just claim to be dead people false names they've registered. They will even driven them to a few polling stations while feeding them and paying them in cigarettes and crack. They get to vote early and often. That can't happen with a voter ID requirement.

What if i can't afford to get myself to the polling place?... what if i can't afford to take off work that day to vote? ... am I disenfranchised too????

Yes.

Quote:

A $20 voter registration fee... or even a REQUIREMENT to have a voter ID card is NOT "disenfranchisement".
But a non-citizen voting in our elections IS disenfranchisement for everyone else... and needs to be prevented.

Ah yes...poll taxes. Lovely.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I'm inclined to agree with you and tonton on this, actually. People should not be prevented from voting because they can't afford the ID card. That said, I wonder how many people actually 1) wish to vote and 2) cannot merely because of the, say, $20 fee. Also, do we means test it? Or, does everyone get a free photo ID?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'm inclined to agree with you and tonton on this, actually. People should not be prevented from voting because they can't afford the ID card. That said, I wonder how many people actually 1) wish to vote and 2) cannot merely because of the, say, $20 fee. Also, do we means test it? Or, does everyone get a free photo ID?

I just saw this. I completely disagree. In fact, Bush would have likely won by much more.

Of course you'd say that. With the Florida shenanigans in 2000 and the Ohio bullshit in 2004, this is clearly the darkest, most terrible timeline. All because you rolled a 1. Our sole purpose is to now find a way to break into the other timeline, kill our good selves, and take our rightful spots in a timeline that addressed the very real issue of global climate change, never went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, and rampant anti-intellectualism from the right wing didn't strangle our national debate.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Of course you'd say that. With the Florida shenanigans in 2000 and the Ohio bullshit in 2004, this is clearly the darkest, most terrible timeline. All because you rolled a 1. Our sole purpose is to now find a way to break into the other timeline, kill our good selves, and take our rightful spots in a timeline that addressed the very real issue of global climate change, never went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, and rampant anti-intellectualism from the right wing didn't strangle our national debate.

Because BR is a self proclaimed mental giant, he obviously didn't see the post where I refuted Sammi's points using those crazy facts and figures. Instead he ignored it and took the high road to win the argument by using ridicule and clips from television comedy shows.

Of course you'd say that. With the Florida shenanigans in 2000 and the Ohio bullshit in 2004, this is clearly the darkest, most terrible timeline. All because you rolled a 1. Our sole purpose is to now find a way to break into the other timeline, kill our good selves, and take our rightful spots in a timeline that addressed the very real issue of global climate change, never went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, and rampant anti-intellectualism from the right wing didn't strangle our national debate.

Yes, yes...BR. Let's ignore the positively unreal media bias during 2000. Let's ignore the 10,000 votes that Bush lost in Florida after the state was called early. Let's ignore the potentially millions of votes he lost in the midwest and west because people thought the race was over at 8:00 p.m. Instead, let's focus on the phony butterfly ballot argument (one that was created by a Democratic canvassing board and published in advance of the election for approval) and the ever-so-popular Diebold conspiracy. Jesus.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

James Gordon, Chairman of the Troy Republican Committee said, having been a part of the election process for a number of years that he has, “never heard or seen anything resembling these actions.”

He added, “In fact, after the Democrats were caught in 2009 the records at the Board of Elections were searched. More cases of fraud were found dating back to 2007 or 2008, all attributed to Democrat candidates and operatives. Nothing from any GOP members.”

One particular case involved former Troy City Clerk, William McInerney, who resigned from his position after being implicated for falsifying absentee ballots dating back to 2007, the year he helped Democrats seize control of the Council.

Recent Troy Mayoral candidate and former Troy City Councilmember, Carmella Mantello, also denied that these election tactics were ever commonplace in the GOP.

“This ‘practice’ was never part of the electoral process.”

With eight Democrats facing charges in the investigation, Gordon sums up the situation by saying, ”Democrats wanted to win and it appears at any cost.”

I'll trade you the nonresidents and dead people who vote fraudulently, for the people who are discouraged from voting because they're poor, and for the voting processes that trick people into voting for the wrong candidate, and for the voting machines that have non-transparent code and nonlinear result tallies, any day, any time.

Meanwhile, we all know that Republicans never commit voter fraud, right?

I'll trade you the nonresidents and dead people who vote fraudulently, for the people who are discouraged from voting because they're poor,

You mean like the ones that are bussed to the polls by Democrats? Or the ones that were given cigarettes in 2004 for their vote?

Quote:

and for the voting processes that trick people into voting for the wrong candidate,

The butterfly ballot was developed by a DEMOCRATIC canvassing board and published in the newspaper for review before the election. No objections were raised. So pardon, but give me a fucking break, tonton.

Quote:

and for the voting machines that have non-transparent code and nonlinear result tallies, any day, any time.

OK, I agree there. It's not proof that such "fraud" is widespread, nor that the error rate exceeds that of manual balloting.

Quote:

Meanwhile, we all know that Republicans never commit voter fraud, right?

Quote:

Republican Secretary of State Charlie White has held on to his office for more than a year despite being accused of lying about his address on voter registration forms.

Yeah, because that shows widespread voter fraud. One's guy's actions on his own behalf are totally the same as massive Democratic fraud over the past 50 years.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'll trade you the nonresidents and dead people who vote fraudulently, for the people who are discouraged from voting because they're poor, and for the voting processes that trick people into voting for the wrong candidate, and for the voting machines that have non-transparent code and nonlinear result tallies, any day, any time.

So you trade completely breaking the law for claims that following the law leads to claims of non-participation for a few.

That is ridiculous reasoning and a ridiculous trade. I've decided I'm discouraged from saving for retirement or I picked the wrong stocks or I think the stock trades I picked weren't executed as well or as quickly as I would have liked.

I've decided that private property, namely your private property and right to it shouldn't exist due to this.